|
But as it's running 32-bit XP Pro - this is our IT department's spec (sometimes you just have to stop fighting) - it's really 3.25GB. Still, it's 2.25GB more RAM than in my last machine 
|
|
|
|
|
Oooh you people make me green with envy! I have to run VS2008 on a loptap with 1Gb RAM, 1.6GHz single core, 20Gb h/disk. It seems to me that the larger the company, the smaller the development workstation. Admittedly, I've got access to virtual machines to do the actual testing on but they're at the other end of a double-bounce broadband connection (i.e. My office<-BB->Hub Site<-BB->VM site) and shared with a hundred other people so there's a bit of contention. If there's one thing this has taught me it's to write tight code with minimal decoration and let someone else grumble about what it looks like.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, VS 2008 is not bad - I run it on similar laptop with 3/4 of your memory, and with couple of DB servers running. It's only when I develop in Java NetBeans at the same time that NetBeans freezes  from time to time.
|
|
|
|
|
Dmitri,
You're right there. I find VS2008 to be infinitely preferable to VS2005 and it certainly does the job without complaint. Yes, I also run SQL Server, ADAM, Outlook and one or two other things in the background but there are some days that I... just... wish... it... was... a... bit... F-A-S-T-E-R!!!
|
|
|
|
|
surely there are others that dev on a overkill machine? + it's nice to be able to test your code on 3 os's without a reboot (vm's ftw)
DrewG, MCSD .Net
|
|
|
|
|
So your host os is Xp 64Bit, or Vista 64bit? Any compatability problems?
|
|
|
|
|
vista x64, and I have been thrilled with my results thus far. It is uncommon any more to run into something that just doesn't work in 64 bit, and if so, crack open vpc and problem solved
DrewG, MCSD .Net
|
|
|
|
|
Same here -- Vista x64 on a dual core 8 GB machine. Couldn't be happier. VM's also solve any testing/compatibility issues you can think of. All my target systems are in one box for testing!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm on a laptop with vista 32-bit. AFAIK my system (dell inspiron 1520) doesn't have 64-bit drivers available 
|
|
|
|
|
Join the club, got a quad core to, except I have only 4GB of memory on this machine.
VMWare rulez!
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
"What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson
My blog
|
|
|
|
|
Very true..
Visual Studio is known to be a resource hog..
My machine set up is quad-core 45nm q95450
Ram 8Gb DDR2 800
Tell you what, I never have to close any project window to save system's resource ever~!
Live for ASP.NET...
|
|
|
|
|
Nah.. I've got one too.. Running Vista x64 Ultimate with 8GB. While a little gunshy at first to install x64, I've been surprised to find that I haven't had any compatibility issues. Everything I use works great (VS 2008, VS 2005, Blend, Design, Illustrator, Photoshop, Virtual PC 2007, MS Office, etc). The hardware acceleration in Virtual PCs is astoundingly fast (I'm playing StartCraft on a XP Home Virtual PC right now). Have had this setup for almost 6 months now. Will never go back.
modified on Monday, August 4, 2008 2:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, 8 gigs is nice when you run vm's I am a web developer so I don't really need vm's so often so four gig and my 45 nm Quad Core Xeon does the trick.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a web developer also, and I find the VM's to be totally necessary when testing older browers: IE6, Fx2, and IE6 on Windows 2000. Unfortunately, we have to fully support all of those!
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I can relate to that, fortunately we don't have to as we create closed web applications for large government institutions, we only need to support the latest Firefox and IE fully. We use virtual machines too but only right before release to ensure our application works technically on older browsers but we don't have to fully support them.
|
|
|
|
|
I bet. 
My current dev box (a dual core 2.2GHz Opteron with 5GB running Win2k8 x64) was an impulse buy after we saw the insane pricing one of our suppliers was offering on them (under £100, FFS!). We weren't actually planning to buy any new machines until later in the year but this was too tempting to pass up. 
For an entry level server box (HP Proliant ML115 G5) it's pretty zippy. Although I could use an additional 6 cores (some of the testing we do can easily chew through an arbitrary number of CPU cores) that can wait until n-core CPUs are a bit more available.
|
|
|
|
|
yes, and we know what you are compensating
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist
|
|
|
|
|
yes my really small car
DrewG, MCSD .Net
|
|
|
|
|
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist
|
|
|
|
|
We're running with 16gb and 8 cores on our dev machines here, entirely necessary of course...
|
|
|
|
|
Memory is very cheap if you do not buy it from a pc manufacturer. 8GB of quality DDR2 can be had for $170US at newegg. This is for sets of 2GB matched pair DDR2 PC6400 modules (four total 2GB dimms). If you buy your machine from Dell or HP they will charge you 3 to 6 times the market rate for lower quality dimms.
John
modified on Monday, August 4, 2008 1:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Am running Core 2 Duo with 4gb and loving every minute of it; once I redo my server system (made the mistake of upgrading instead of replacing W2K3 with W2K8), that has 2gb and newly upgraded PIV @2GHz. Those are home systems, btw, at work just got a Core 2 Duo w/2gb. Clients at home and work are XP Pro SP3, though I'm probably either adding or converting to Vista 64 at home (assuming I master the UAC complexities) as I have MSDN Pro and want to use VPC to create app sandboxes. VS at home is [2003,2005,2008] of which 2008 is the one I am currently using, while work is still at 2003. I'll probably keep the server at 32-bit at home.
BTW, anyone have a suggestion on where to ask here about low-cost reasonble-perfomance graphics adapters for W2K3 Server 32-bit?
|
|
|
|
|
cpkilekofp wrote: BTW, anyone have a suggestion on where to ask here about low-cost reasonble-perfomance graphics adapters for W2K3 Server 32-bit?
I have about 1 dozen of these (although none are on W2K3) and they work very well:
ASUS 256MB EN7200GS which is less than $40US
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121085[^]
John
|
|
|
|
|
John M. Drescher wrote: I have about 1 dozen of these (although none are on W2K3) and they work very well:
The problem is, W2K3 (and W2K8) use a different, "safer" graphics interface. I have hundreds of cards available to me that run W2K/WXP, and a few of those run on W2K3-64, but the list that run on W2K3-32 is very small indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
The only W2K3 box we have is using XP drivers from a medical imaging card and it works fine. I would normally plop one of the 7200GS cards in and test but we are in the middle of a research study so I can not mess with the machine.
John
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)